Younger, wealthier Americans seem to be rewriting the house rules of wealth management.
For them, crypto is a normal slice of a portfolio. For many of their advisors, though, it’s still a compliance headache and a career risk.
Most of them already work with a financial advisor or private wealth manager. Yet when it comes to crypto, a big chunk runs a separate stack of apps, exchanges, and wallets because their advisory firm either can’t or won’t touch it.
Tens of trillions will flow from older Americans to younger heirs and charities over the next two decades. The people set to receive that capital already treat a 5–20% crypto allocation as usual, and they’re now benchmarking advisors on whether they can underwrite that reality without blowing up fiduciary duty, tax planning, or basic cybersecurity.
The decision younger wealthy clients have to make is simple: if you won’t manage the part of my portfolio I care most about, I’ll find someone who will.
The numbers from Zerohash’s survey are blunt: around 61% percent of affluent 18–40-year-olds already hold crypto. That share climbs to 69% among the highest earners in the sample, and most don’t see crypto as a fun lottery. Among high-income investors, 58% put 11–20% of their portfolios into digital assets.
For all of them, crypto sits in the same mental bucket as real estate and core equity funds, not as a side bet. The study notes that 43% of young investors allocate 5–10% of their portfolios to crypto, 27% allocate 11–20%, and 11% allocate more than 20%. Zerohash also adds that 84% of crypto holders plan to increase those allocations over the next year.
Those are the numbers for the demand side.
On the supply side, the advisory channel is basically a ghost town. The survey showed 76% of crypto holders invest independently, outside their brokerage or wealth management firm. Only 24% hold crypto through an advisor at all.
These are not your BTC maximalists living in cold storage; these are people who already pay a basis-point fee for advice and still feel they have to run a separate portfolio in another browser tab.
Their money is already moving, as 35% percent of all affluent investors in the sample say they have shifted assets away from advisors who do not offer crypto.
Among the top-earning group on $500,000 to over $1 million, that share jumps to 51%. More than half of those who left moved between $250,000 and $1 million per head.
And yet, the same dataset shows how easy it would be for wealth managers to keep these clients. About 64% of respondents say they would stay with an advisor longer or bring more assets across if that advisor provided crypto access; 63% say they would feel more comfortable investing through an advisor if digital assets sat on the same portfolio dashboard as their stocks and bonds.
The main takeaway is that the bar for advisors is very, very low. The bar isn’t “become a crypto hedge fund,” but “recognize this asset class exists and can be held inside the same reporting stack.”
Layer this on top of the Great Wealth Transfer, and the stakes get very large, very fast. Cerulli and RBC estimate that total wealth moving from older Americans to younger generations and charities will be in the $84–$124 trillion range through the 2040s.
That wall of inheritance and business proceeds is drifting toward cohorts who already treat crypto as a regular part of their portfolio.
If the demand is this clear, why do so many advisors still default to “we can’t touch that”?
Part of the answer sits in product design. For a long time, the only way an advisory firm could get crypto exposure into a model portfolio was through weird closed-end funds, trust structures, or offshore vehicles nobody wanted to explain in a compliance exam.
Even now, with spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs out in the wild, many RIAs and broker-dealers treat those tickers as curiosities.
Then there is the paperwork. Investment Policy Statements written in the past 10 years often lump Bitcoin into “prohibited speculative instruments” alongside penny stocks and options. Changing that language takes committee meetings, E&O reviews, and legal memos. The path of least resistance for a mid-level compliance officer is usually to write “not approved at this time.”
Underneath that sits custody law. Under SEC rules, registered advisers need to hold client funds and securities with a “qualified custodian,” which usually means a bank, broker-dealer, or similar institution that meets strict safeguards.
For years, crypto didn’t fit neatly into those boxes, and the coveted SAB 121 (Staff Accounting Bulletin 121) made life even more complicated by forcing public banks that held digital assets to record matching liabilities on their balance sheets.
That logjam has started to clear. In early 2025, the SEC rolled out new guidance and no-action relief that made it easier for state-chartered trust companies to serve as qualified crypto custodians, effectively retiring SAB 121. The regulatory stack might still look like uncharted waters for many, but it no longer treats digital assets as radioactive waste.
However, on the ground, a new cast of partners is rushing into the gap. Fidelity Crypto for Wealth Managers offers custody and trade execution through Fidelity Digital Assets, wired directly into the same Wealthscape interface that an RIA already uses for stocks and bonds.
Eaglebrook Advisors runs model portfolios and SMAs focused on BTC and ETH for wealth managers, with portfolio reporting and billing wired into standard RIA systems. BitGo has built a platform aimed at wealth management that ties qualified custody to a TAMP-style overlay.
Anchorage Digital pitches itself as a regulated digital asset custodian with reporting, reconciliation, and governance controls explicitly designed for RIAs.
On paper, a mid-sized advisory shop could now bolt on a crypto sleeve with partners it already recognizes from the institutional world. But in practice, the pipes inside many firms are still stuck in the last cycle. OMS and PMS systems do not always know what to do with staking yield. The billing logic struggles with on-chain positions.
This is where the “crypto-competent advisor” idea matters. A serious under-40 client today doesn’t care if their advisor can quote the Nakamoto consensus section of the Bitcoin whitepaper. They care about whether that advisor can:
None of that is science fiction anymore. It’s just regular old financial advisor work. And it’s work that younger, wealthier investors have begun using as a scorecard.
Zerohash’s survey shows a slow-motion run on legacy investment platforms.
Start with the top-line: 35% of affluent investors in the 18–40 bracket have already moved assets away from advisors who do not provide crypto access. Among the highest-earning slice, that share is 51%. More than half of those who left had household incomes between $250,000 and $1 million.
Put that into revenue terms. A $750,000 account billed at 1% is $7,500 per year. Lose ten of those relationships because you cannot stomach a 5–10% Bitcoin sleeve, and you have burned through the equivalent of a junior advisor’s salary. Lose fifty and you are into “we used to have an office in that city” territory.
The path usually looks something like this:
First, the client opens a self-directed account or a mobile app to get exposure while their advisor waffles. They buy the spot BTC ETF or a mix of coins on a mainstream exchange.
Then, as that bucket grows and starts to feel real, they go shopping for someone who can treat it as part of a serious balance sheet.
Crypto-focused RIAs and multi-family offices have picked up that brief, from DAiM in California to new arms like Abra Capital Management.
Along the way, TikTok, YouTube, and Discord serve as the new discovery layer. A creator walks through how they run a 60/30/10 portfolio with T-bills, index ETFs, and a BTC/ETH sleeve. A podcast brings on a family office CIO who talks casually about budgeting 5% for digital assets. The message lands: if your advisor cannot even discuss this, others will.
Culture becomes distribution. The golden aura around mahogany offices, golf club memberships, and brand-name wirehouses sits alongside a screen showing real-time P&L for a Coinbase or Binance account.
For clients under 40, trust is starting to look like proof-of-reserves, qualified custody, hardware wallets, 2FA, and the ability to see everything in one portal, not just a logo they grew up seeing on CNBC.
The Zerohash survey backs this up: 82% percent of respondents say that moves by names like BlackRock, Fidelity, and Morgan Stanley into digital assets make them more at ease with crypto in advisory portfolios. This is brand halo used in a new way: not to sell the firm’s own stock-picking skill, but to validate a new asset class they already hold.
The portfolio design underneath all this is boring in the best way. Most affluent young investors in the survey sit inside a barbell: treasuries and broad indices on one side, a 5–20% crypto sleeve on the other, and some private deals or real estate sprinkled in between.
They are not trying to reinvent modern portfolio theory. They are just adding one more risk bucket, then asking why the person who manages everything else in their life cannot help them manage this one.
On the policy side, it lists Bitcoin and Ethereum as permitted assets in the IPS, subject to a defined cap, with clear language on liquidity events, rebalancing bands, and concentration limits.
On the product side, it offers a simple menu: spot ETFs for clients who care about convenience and easy tax reporting; direct coins with institutional custody for those who want on-chain access; minimal alt exposure, if any, and only in products that clear compliance checks.
On the operations side, it chooses partners who plug into existing reporting and billing systems: perhaps Fidelity Crypto for custody and execution, Eaglebrook or Bitwise strategies inside model portfolios, Anchorage or BitGo for more advanced clients who need governance features and staking.
And it works on cybersecurity: how to talk about hardware wallets, key backups, SIM-swap risk, and what happens if a client loses access.
On the human side, it stops treating crypto questions as a nuisance and starts treating them as an early warning system. The client who quietly moves $500,000 to a self-directed platform because you refused even to discuss Bitcoin is telling you something. Not necessarily anything about their risk tolerance, but a lot about how replaceable they think you are.
All of this sits atop that $80-plus trillion to $120-plus trillion wall of wealth slated to move from boomers to their heirs over the next two decades. The inheritors of that capital grew up in a world where spending and sending feel as normal as wiring a bank transfer, and they’re busy watching which advisors respect that reality.
The window is open for Wall Street, but it will not stay open forever. The first wave of crypto-competent RIAs, family offices, and fintech platforms is already laying the groundwork for weaving Bitcoin and digital assets into plain-vanilla wealth management without blowing up fiduciary duty, tax planning, or cybersecurity.
Everyone else can keep arguing about whether a 5–10% crypto sleeve belongs in a portfolio while their clients quietly walk their accounts out the door.
The wealth transfer is happening either way. The question is who gets to book the AUM when it lands.
